this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
111 points (91.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40029 readers
926 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It is fun to think about the Simulation Theory but most discussions revolve around it being likely that we are in one.

What are some concrete reasons why it's all science fiction and not reality?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My main argument would be that it would be incredibly unethical. And any intelligent civilization powerful enough to create a simulation like this would be more likely than not to be ethical, and if it was this unethical it is unlikely to exist for long. Those would be two potential reasons why the "infinite regress" in simulation theory is unlikely.

The Starmaker is an interesting exploration into simulation theory.

[–] blahsay@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure I agree with you on it being unethical.

If you could spin up a planet and have it speed through its entire life (till solar expansion say) then any life on the planet would have lived full, unimpeded lives and I can't see any argument for that being unethical.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You'd look at things like the holocaust or million other atrocities and say "this is fine". Also you can't assume they'd die out naturally in 5 billion years, they might colonize other planets and go on and on and on until you pull the switch. They might have created beautiful art and things and preserved much of their history for future generation and then poof all gone. What if they would find out? Would you say "I created them, therefor I own them and can do with my toys as I please". Really?

[–] blahsay@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not your responsibility if a sentient race goes and annihilates itself. In fact it could be considered abhorrent to interfere with it's natural development and free will.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree somewhat with that but: only if the starting conditions were completely random. Otherwise if you set the conditions to be similar to what we know about humanity, you'd have to anticipate both cooperation and competition and parasitic behavior leading to wars and atrocities. And that also assumes that they actually have a chance to grow up for the suffering to have any meaning. If you just turn it off your science experiment at some point you have invalidated the argument.

Either way when you're playing god you'd have to morally justify yourself. Imagine you create a universe that eventually becomes an eternal hell where trillions of sentient beings are tortured through something like "I have no mouth but I must scream".

[–] Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 year ago

If they are just simulated, they aren't real (even if close). If they aren't real, what difference does it make? They are NPCs.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

"The Hydrogen Sonata" by Ian M. Banks also takes this view. The (incredibly complex and capable) AIs can simulate societies of living "people" to predict how they will behave, down to individual creatures. At some point of complexity in the simulation, they determine that it's no longer ethical to pull the plug because the simulations are "alive" and "self aware" in most every way that matters. As a result, they DON'T simulate past that point.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What if homo sapiens died out and the Neanderthals who succeeded instead decided to simulate how history would have gone if it were the other way around, effectively resurrecting the extinct humans, additionally adding in ethical considerations such that everyone born into the simulation would have an unending post-life existence optimally fitted relative to their own preferences?

Just because we only see part of the picture doesn't mean the whole is as unethical as the part we can see seems to be.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm 😇 The afterlife might be a good way to make it up. Have you seen "The Good Place"?

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I have indeed. Some interesting ideas in there.